Overview / Summary
- bodhisattva ideal is consistent with the ideal expressed in the Tipitaka, suggest different ways of interpreting the nature authority and message of the sacred texts
-outlines anyone who aspires to become a Buddha in Mahayana is in reality a bodhisattva, however possible that Theravada Buddhists may disagree with this interpretation because of their use of the bodhisattva as one term along with other terms
- could be argued the bodhistattva is the highest ideal when compared to a sravaka and a pratyekabuddha which are evidence in the Tipitaka, however not every denomination within Buddhism would agree with this because of where the bod is placed within religious texts
- believes Samyaksambuddha is superior and the other two inferior but not disregarded
About the Author
The Venerable Dr. Walpola Sri Rahula (1907–1997), was a Buddhist monk (bhikkhu), scholar and writer from Sri Lanka. He received the traditional monastic training and education in Buddhism in Ceylon. In 1964, he became the Professor of History and Religions at Northwestern University, thus becoming the first bhikkhu to hold a professorial chair in the Western world. He also once held the position of Vice-Chancellor at the then Vidyodaya University (now University of Sri Jayewardenepura). He is the author of What the Buddha Taught and The Heritage of the Bhikkhu. He has written extensively about Buddhism in English, French and Sinhalese.
Introduction
This is an introduction to the Mahayana, ‘Hinayana’ and Theravada vehicles by Sri Lankan Buddhist monk (bhikkhu) and professor Walpola Rahula (1907-1997), where he points out that all Buddhist schools accept the Bodhisattva ideal as the highest:
There is a wide-spread belief, particularly in the West, that the ideal of the Theravada, which they conveniently identify with Hinayana, is to become an Arahant while that of the Mahayana is to become a Bodhisattva and finally to attain the state of a Buddha. It must be categorically stated that this is incorrect [...] the fact is that both the Theravada and the Mahayana unanimously accept the Bodhisattva ideal as the highest.
He also explores the difference between bodhisattvas, pratyekabuddhas and shravaka arhats, and notes that the Mahayana and Theravada Pali Tripitaka also agree that the attainment of a fully enlightened Buddha is greater than that of a Shravaka or Pratyekabuddha:
The Mahayana unequivocally says that a Buddha, a Pratyekabuddha and a Sravaka (disciple), all three are equal and alike with regard to their purification or liberation from defilements or impurities (kleshas).
This is also called Vimukti-Kaya (Liberation-body), and in it there is no difference between the three. That means that there are no three different Nirvanas or Vimuktis for three persons. Nirvana or Vimukti is the same for all. But only a Buddha achieves the complete liberation from all the obstructions to the knowable, i.e., obstructions to knowledge, not the Shravakas and Pratyekabuddhas. This also is called Dharma-Kaya (Dharma-body), and it is in this and many other innumerable qualities, capacities and abilities that the Buddha becomes incomparable and superior to Shravakas and Pratyekabuddhas. This Mahayana view is quite in keeping with the Theravada Pali Tripitaka.
Key Themes
· The Theravada concern that being called ‘hinayana’ is ‘convenient’ name calling by Mahayana instead if reasoned thinking from the scriptures.
· That both Theravada and Mahayana use the Bodhisattva- but it is limited as only the name Theravada give the historical Buddha and Kings of Srilanka.
· A rejection of the idea of one vehicle or path and the two truth doctrine behind it.
· The Theravada rejection of the Bodhisattva-Stravaka opposition used as a polemic by taught by Narajuna and Asanga and still many Mahayana today.
Context
Rahula is a Theravada apologist is appropriating to –Asanghas Yogacara writing to undermine Mahayana arguments for it as a legitimate and separate origin tradition without need for and separate from Theravada.
In the text when he says…
the Mahayana says… all three are equal and alike there is no difference between the three no three different Nirvanas or Vimuktis for three persons
Research the idea of ekyana or one vehicle – that given the teaching of Sunyatta it would be wrong to think about separate types of liberation although some Buddhists seem to suggest just that such as Pure land-
Does Ekyana mean there is in fact neither liberation nor no liberation no! Here you need to link to types of liberation in Mahayana thinking.
Madhyamika – founded by Nagarjuna (150 CE to 250 CE). According to Madhyamaka all phenomena (dharmas) are empty (śūnya) of "nature," a "substance" or "essence" (svabhāva) which gives them "solid and independent existence," because they are dependently co-arisen. But this "emptiness" itself is also "empty": it does not have an existence on its own, nor does it refer to a transcendental reality beyond or above phenomenal reality The ultimate aim of understanding emptiness is not philosophical insight as such, but to gain a liberated mind which does not dwell upon concepts. To realize this, meditation on emptiness may proceed in stages, starting with the emptiness of both self, objects and mental states,[23] culminating in a "natural state of nonreferential freedom."[
Yogachara (literally "yoga practice"; "one whose practice is yoga") is an influential school of Buddhist philosophy and psychology emphasizing phenomenology and ontology through the interior lens of meditative and yogic practices. It was associated with Indian Mahayana Buddhism in about the fourth century, but also included non-Mahayana practitioners of the Dārṣṭāntika school Liberation thus entails an awakening that realizes that observer and observed are not distinct entities, but mutually co-dependent. in the Āgamas. Pure Land